Harold, as usual, I am a maverick on this. In my history papers, I apply more the genealogical standard than the historical, though that may be hidden rather than overt to the reader's eye. I am attempting to bring history more to the "original/derivative" distinction rather than the "primary/secondary" one. I never have heard any of the historians I hang with use expressions such as "being present during an experience" or "inside view," so I can't comment on that specifically. I do think that our genealogical distinction between original and derivative sources is more precise than the use of primary and secondary. What historians consider a "primary" document is often what genealogists consider a derivative source, and thereby subject to transcription errors. I took pains to make this point in my master's thesis. Also, there is the fact that a lot of the "original" documents I deal with are actually derivative. They are drafts or copies or summaries of other documents. It's all rather a sticky wicket. Some historians, at least, have learned to take the skeptical approach toward original documents. Part of my analysis of the documents I'm dealing with is to try to figure out if those who originated them were trying to "game the system," and it appears that at times, that is exactly what was going on. In my particular field of Spanish colonial studies, I'm looking at a book called Into the Archive: Writing and Power in Colonial Peru, by Kathryn Burns. It examines the role and practice of the colonial notary, going into how they were regarded (usually not well) and how the documents they created often were not what they seem on the surface. This is a great discussion, by the way. Karen Packard Rhodes Middleburg, Clay County, Florida On 6/1/2015 9:06 AM, Harold Henderson via wrote: > That said, I honestly do not see why historians don't appreciate the more > precise definitional tools that genealogy has made available. It just makes > my teeth hurt to hear someone referring to sources "being present during an > experience" or using "inside view" to define them. (Surely the Gettysburg > Address is a primary source? But it offers no inside view in the way that a > letter home from someone who heard it would.) Maybe the historians on this > list can provide some insight? > > Harold > > > Harold Henderson, CG midwestroots.net >